The head of the UN IPCC is sounding like a salesman who is worried about the quality of his product:
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century. "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents," he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.
So, Pachauri has noticed that the natural 'El Nino' driven record year for instrumentally measured 'global average temperature' remains as 1998. We are now in 2008, Rather than admit to the possibility that ever increasing CO2 emissions don't seem to be pushing up global temperatures, he is looking for another excuse.
Read more on Pielke Jr's excellent Prometheus blog.
You comment about the clouds is too much of a generalisation. For one thing, more diffuse radiation will get through mid level clouds than through low cloud. Then we might consider that mid level clouds tend to form or build more at night than during the day. (Ever watched a cloud disappear on a hot sunny day?)
I can think of solar particle flow (and a UK company makes money from weather predictions based on just that), and solar magnetism that NASA recently found to be like twisted worms. Whether the sun's movement around the barycentre of the solar system has any effect is still being debated.
John,
a) I thought mid level clouds would act to cool, rather than warm the climate. The north polar regions have had warmer years than 1998.
b) I don't know if anyone has said that. I haven't seen any other way other than GCMs (and there's no process that describes how this works). I assume you are talking about cosmic rays? I thought it was only Galactic cosmic rays that thought helped create clouds (that is csomic rays not from the sun).
I am interested to hear what other ways there are.
Mr T, two points... (a) from 1998 to mid 2006 (end of data) outside the tropical zones there was a decrease in low level cloud and in increase in mid-level cloud. Cloud cover controls how much of that irradiance reaches the earth's surface. (b) Who says that solar irradiance is the only way that the sun can influence climate?
John, solar irradiance has been decreasing over those years. That may be why the temperatures haven't been rising as rapidly. Only HadCrut has 2007 as cooler than 2006 (and not by much). This no warming since 1998 is just due to a poor understanding of statistics.
Here's more evidence of Global Warming.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2008/2008012826149.html
Luke, re "salesman" and "product". It's an analogy, which my dictionary says is a "likeness between two things in respects".
Pachauri is NOT "the head of a commission charged with reviewing the state of climate change science issues".
The role of the IPCC, according to its documents, is to 'assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.'
Pachauri's rhetorical question about whether natural factors are compensating needs to be examined in the light of (a) the IPCC's role and (b) his continued defence of what amounts to 4 very weak pieces of evidence for man-made warming.
If he had any integrity he would also have said that there has been little volcanic activity that might keep temperatures down over the last 4 years and that the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) over that time has been very much towards El Nino conditions rather than the cooler La Nina state. Only for the last few months of 2007 did the ENSO move towards La Nina.
Trust the EU to find anyway it can to continue subsidizing its farm community with the biofuels scam. Bad for the environment. Bad for the economy. Good for the vested EU farm interests. Think I'll buy a tractor and start blocking roads with it!
Gavin, the EU plan is a mess. See here, for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/27/nbook127.xml
Paul - you really can't help youself can you?
(1) salesman?
(2) product?
I thought he was the head of a commission charged with reviewing the state of climate change science issues.
So do denialists also have alternative "products" to "sell".
So the guy can't win can he? If he says nothing "he's hiding something" and if he says anything else "he's looking for an excuse".
He's projecting a need to the science community to better explain and track what we're observing.
And now this is a problem for the skeptics ?
Wow - cranky lot aren't we.
It's a plan, but not a climate plan.
Keeping up with the chase Paul?
“A European Climate Plan”
An intriguing approach that meshes well with bills on Capitol Hill”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/27/AR2008012701591_pf.html